The Centre For Social Cohesion

Clearly, Muslim scholars should know what their own religion condemns and what it condones far better than any non-Muslim. But the remarkably pacifistic tone of the declaration not only seemed too good to be true. It also seemed at variance with numerous other claims made by Muslims and non-Muslims alike that Islam condones and sometimes mandates physical violence in the form of jihad.

Could any further light on this matter be shed by visiting the website of the madrassa at which yesterday’s declaration was made?

There, the mystery seemed only to deepen. A posting last week there advertising yesterday’s conference, which it called an ‘All-India Anti-Terrorism Conference’, portrayed Islam in yet still more pacifistic terms:

“Islam is the religion of peace, tranquillity, brotherhood, tolerance, love and equality”, the advertisement began.

By this time, and with rapidly burgeoning curiosity and hope that all this time the countless claims that Islam countenanced physical violence might after all be wrong, I turned for further enlightenment about yesterday’s conference to an Indian-based website that describes itself as ‘India’s leading internet portal for news’. There, in a report about yesterday's conference, the Vice-Rector of the Deobandi madrassa was quoted as having said there:

“Any terrorist activity which targets innocent people directly contradicts Islam’s concept of peace.”

Ah, the light finally began to dawn. This remark implies that violent activity that directly targets the non-innocent is permissible. It also implies to be innocent violent activity that targets the non-innocent but which incidentally maims and kills the innocent.

Moreover, who constitutes an ‘innocent person’ in this context is left unclear. Does someone count as innocent whose taxes go to an Exchequer that finances an army that fights Muslims in Muslim lands?

Maybe, Islam is not quite as much the religion of peace as those at the conference had been wishing to portray it.

That surmise was confirmed by taking a look at some of the other pronouncements that the madrassa’s Vice-Rector, Maulana Abdul Khaliq Madrasi, has been reported as having made.

In an interview he gave in May 2003, the very same man reportedly said:

“It is the sacred duty of every Muslim to defend the territory for the defence of the Faith. They must continue their efforts till all threats to Islam are dismissed. In view of the presence of the forces of US and allies in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq, it is obligatory for the Islamic World and every Muslim, individually and collectively, to ensure that the resistance against the enemy is continued till each and every member of anti-Islam Christian forces is expelled from Muslim countries….

“There are various verses at several places in the Holy Quran which state that if a Muslim country is attacked, or if Muslims are subjected to atrocities, if they are deprived of their rights, or if their religious beliefs are attacked or if Muslims are deprived of their power and suppressed; in every case it is obligatory for Muslims to fight the enemy. All that is being done by US forces in Iraq; for that reason it is mandatory for Muslims of the world, particularly of Muslims of adjoining countries that they should rise in an organized manner against the USA for defense of the nation and the country….[The] Islamic world should form a united defense instead of taking recourse to verbal rhetoric. They should mobilize all their material and martial resources with unflinching faith to defeat Zionist forces. If that is done, the time is not far off when Muslims will emerge from the life of humiliation and degradation to lead life of success and dignity.”

Here in Blighty, of course, the Deobandis have established a score or more madrassas at which is purveyed the same outlook as that of the mother-ship. The head of one of these madrassas, situated in Leicester, is Sheikh Riyadh ul Haq. He received training at another Deobandi madrassa based in Bury that had been set up and was run by an alumnus of the madrassa at Deoband, Yusuf Motala.

In July 2001, Sheikh Riyadh ul-Haq gave a sermon entitled ‘The globalised suffering of the Muslims’ in which he said:

“No one dare utter the J word. The J word has become taboo. The J word can never be mentioned and if someone mentions it even Muslims look at one another. And the moment we say something, we are branded fanatics, terrorists, extremists.

“The J word is Jihad in the way of Allah ….

“Allah says: ‘And why should you not fight in the way of Allah and in defence of those poor and oppressed men, women and children who are calling out and pleading to Allah. Oh Allah… grant us a guardian from unto yourself and raise from amongst us one who will assist us.’

“Allah says: ‘those who believe, fight in the way of Allah and those who disbelieve, fight in the way if evil. Fight the friends of Shaitan (the devil).’

“I am not suggesting that we should rise here…. I speak of those Muslims who are in the situation that Allah has described in these verses of the Koran, yet when they rise are branded terrorists, extremists, fanatics. Everything is legitimised against them and we cannot even as much speak in their favour.”

Somehow, I suspect, Mr ul-Haq’s sermon gives a far more accurate representation of Deobandi orthodoxy regarding the permissibility of violence by Muslims than the almost Quaker-like impression conveyed by today’s Times report about yesterday’s conference.